Hi Dirk.
On 15/01/24 19:57, Dirk Hohndel via subsurface wrote:
I would probably add a link to the other page to the top of each page,
'if you want the latest version, go [here]' / 'if you want a more
stable version, go [here]', or else users will get locked in once they
have bookmarked one of the pages.
There are links in the menu on the left.
But we can of course make it more explicit.
I think allowing users to compare what they are getting from each track
on a single page (irrespective of which track's page they are on) will
make it easier for users to decide what is right for them.
Also, I am wondering if the iOS paragraph should be above 'Linux' -
this will make it show above the fold for most users, and reduce the
number of users posting questions after not finding it.
The reason I have it on the bottom is because it doesn't really give people
anything. And they already get notifications from the AppStore, assuming I keep
my promises 😁
Agreed. Maybe that was just me making biased assumptions around how much
text iOS users vs. linux users are willing to read through until they
give up and ask in the forum. 😆
And I am wondering if it would be better to use more distinguishable
names for the 'release tracks' than 'latest' / 'current' - I suspect
that users will confuse these when talking about them in support
posts. Maybe 'nightly' vs. 'weekly'?
Not a fan because I don't think those really will be the timeframes that these
builds will happen at. Certainly not nightly.
unstable and stable ?
edge and tested ?
Yeah, using the time frames as names is certainly aspirational, but I
think that it will also give users an idea of the relative frequency of
updates / update notifications that they can expect - which will really
be the main difference between the tracks from a user perspective.
I think 'unstable' and 'stable' implies a difference in quality that is
likely not going to be there in reality - if we are pushing changes that
we expect to require more changes to stabilise we should really use a
'feature branch' to complete the work and then push into `master`. And
`unstable` will scare users off using the 'bleeding edge' track even if
they are willing to take _some_ risk.
And 'tested' is the opposite - implying that there has been an effort at
testing the releases, and not just an absence of negative feedback.
'bleeding edge' vs. 'stable'?
Cheers
Michael Keller
/D
_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
